IRC log of tagmem on 2008-03-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:53:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:53:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:53:30 [ht]
Zakim, this will be tag
16:53:30 [Zakim]
ok, ht; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
16:55:14 [ht]
Call: TAG telcon
16:55:20 [ht]
Chair: Stuart Williams
16:55:28 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
16:55:33 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
16:58:08 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
16:58:33 [Stuart]
Stuart has changed the topic to:
16:58:48 [ht]
16:59:29 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
16:59:36 [Zakim]
16:59:42 [Stuart]
zakim, ?? is me
16:59:42 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
17:00:34 [ht]
17:01:08 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
17:01:08 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
17:01:09 [Zakim]
17:01:30 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
17:01:43 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, call DanC-BOS
17:01:43 [Zakim]
ok, DanC_lap; the call is being made
17:01:45 [Zakim]
17:03:04 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
17:03:10 [Zakim]
17:03:31 [noah]
zakim, [IBM] is me
17:03:31 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
17:04:29 [jar]
jar has joined #tagmem
17:04:37 [jar]
dialing in a minute
17:05:00 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:05:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Ht, DanC, noah
17:05:50 [Zakim]
17:05:56 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
17:06:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.253.aaaa
17:06:55 [ht]
SW: Regrets from TV, TimBL
17:06:58 [jar]
zakim, +1.617.253.aaaa is jar
17:06:58 [Zakim]
+jar; got it
17:07:26 [ht]
SW: Agenda as published:
17:07:41 [DanC_lap]
+1 ok
17:07:51 [ht]
SW: Minutes from 21 February approved
17:08:15 [Zakim]
17:08:19 [DanC_lap]
17:08:38 [ht]
SW: Minutes for f2f still coming together, please let's get them cleaned up and out
17:08:57 [DanC_lap]
(Norm, which day of the ftf are you minuting? likewise Dave?)
17:08:58 [DanC_lap]
17:09:00 [ht]
SW: Next telcon 20 March, JR to scribe
17:09:35 [ht]
SW: Regrets NM for 27 March, DO for 20 March, NM at risk for 20 March
17:10:22 [ht]
Topic: F2F recap
17:10:33 [ht]
DO, NW: Went well
17:11:16 [ht]
NM: We used to do code reviews on a project I was on, and unless everyone, or almost everyone, had actually read the code, the review was cancelled
17:12:13 [ht]
... Sometimes at our meetings, I find myself thinking, in reply to a comment, "I don't _think_ you would have said that if you had read the whole document". . .
17:12:30 [ht]
... and this feels like a bit of a downer
17:12:33 [DanC_lap]
(yes, it's worthwhile to set clearer expectations about who is to read what)
17:13:03 [ht]
SW: Skipping item 3 (Issue webApplicationState-60 (ISSUE-60)) in Raman's absence
17:13:30 [ht]
... Please set realistic due dates for actions to review: HST, DC
17:15:18 [ht]
Topic: Issue tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54)
17:15:46 [DanC_lap]
17:15:46 [ht]
SW: Lengthy comment from Al Gilman on this subject:
17:16:27 [Stuart]
q+ DaveO
17:16:41 [Stuart]
ack danc
17:16:43 [noah]
17:16:49 [ht]
SW: [Summarizes] -- : is a problem with existing browser implementations
17:17:12 [ht]
DC: I would like to see details backing up the factual claims that AG makes
17:17:22 [ht]
... There should be tests in their test suite
17:17:50 [Stuart]
ack noah
17:18:36 [ht]
NM: Not just a browser implementation problem, but that there's a buggy dependency -- fixing it for one browser breaks it for another
17:18:44 [DanC_lap]
17:19:04 [Stuart]
ack dave
17:19:20 [ht]
SW: We'll return to ARIA when TBL is on the call
17:20:12 [ht]
DO: IE8 announcement includes something about namespace defaulting on unknown elements, e.g. svg elements
17:20:16 [ht]
17:20:29 [ht]
... and you can put ns decls on the HTML element
17:20:32 [Stuart]
daves blog entry:
17:20:40 [ht]
... but serious limitations
17:20:53 [ht]
... 1) NS decls don't work for attributes
17:21:19 [ht]
... 2) Default NS decl only works once per subtree, e.g. no MathML inside SVG
17:21:20 [Norm]
q+ to ask if this is beta-limitations or intended design or do we know?
17:21:44 [ht]
... Since svg uses xlink:href, the first is a problem
17:21:59 [ht]
... and the embedding problem looks bad also
17:22:12 [ht]
... don't know _why_ they made these restriction
17:22:29 [ht]
17:23:05 [Stuart]
17:23:16 [ht]
... Documents ways of doing [NS decls] in IE7 using the OBJECT tag
17:23:23 [ht]
... What do we do about this?
17:23:34 [DanC_lap]
17:23:44 [ht]
... What if the TAG sent a comment to the IE Team
17:23:52 [ht]
... Glad to see you're moving in this direction
17:24:04 [ht]
... could you add full NS support, please?
17:24:31 [ht]
... We should not only ask HTML 5 WG to do what we need, but the vendors as well
17:24:37 [Stuart]
ack Danc
17:24:59 [ht]
DC: DO, you could attend an HTML WG telcon and ask MS themselves
17:25:15 [Stuart]
ack ht
17:25:27 [ht]
... Some attention from TBL on the validator architecture issue, which is good
17:26:09 [ht]
HST: Question of clarification: We are talking about HTML here, yes?
17:26:15 [ht]
DO: Yes
17:26:52 [ht]
HST: So I'm guessing that the nesting constraint has to do with the empty tag issue: no way to tell when embedding stops
17:27:12 [ht]
DO: Don't know. Do know that you can't use the XHTML namespace at all
17:27:28 [Stuart]
regrets: +Ashok
17:27:29 [ht]
NM: Where does media type feed in to this story?
17:27:54 [Stuart]
17:27:58 [Stuart]
ack norm
17:27:58 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to ask if this is beta-limitations or intended design or do we know?
17:28:03 [ht]
DO: I agree that we should check on that
17:28:24 [noah]
NM: In particular, do we know whether if IE 8 gets application/xhtml+xml?
17:28:26 [ht]
NW: Can't tell if this is just for beta 1, not clear if this is it or we may get more?
17:28:57 [ht]
DO: I _think_ this is just what's in beta 1, the feature set may evolve, but not sure
17:29:36 [ht]
NM: At the show where this was announced, this came in the context of IE 8's plan to default to standards-compliant rendering
17:30:02 [ht]
... that was a big deal, leading off the press conference, so I don't think they'll go back on that
17:30:30 [ht]
NW: Interesting to find out for sure about the NS stuff
17:30:44 [ht]
NM: Not clear
17:31:14 [DanC_lap]
(the SXSW crowd was _very_ happy about the IE8 default change)
17:31:35 [noah]
NM: Please be clear that I do not speak at all for Microsoft.
17:31:51 [Norm]
I sure hope XHTML support exists and has standard XML namespace support.
17:32:55 [ht]
SW: Feedback to browser vendors a bad idea?
17:32:58 [noah]
NM: I'm just passing on my understanding of what I thought I heard at the MIX conference last week. We obviously should contact Microsoft if we want to know what they've really announced and which parts they view as commitments beyond the current IE 8 beta.
17:33:03 [ht]
DC: I'm opposed -- we have a WG for this
17:33:31 [noah]
HT: This is not about HTML 5, which is what the WG is aimed at. It's about the existing HTML specs.
17:33:51 [noah]
HT: It seems very appropriate for W3C or TAG to say "this is interesting and useful" or "not".
17:34:07 [noah]
HT: It's not entirely clear to me why we'd say that to the HTML 5 workgroup.
17:34:43 [ht]
NM: But how are you supposed to know you're looking at HTML 5?
17:34:55 [ht]
DC: No signal, you're supposed to assume 5 forevermore
17:35:11 [DanC_lap]
(I didn't say forevermore)
17:35:28 [Stuart]
17:35:30 [Norm]
q+ to ask Dan about HTML5's support for namespaces. I know what I want to say to the IE team, I'm not sure what I want to say to the HTML5 wg.
17:35:37 [ht]
NM: OK, so the HTML 5 WG _is_ addressing the general question of what browsers should do with _everything_ that looks like HTML
17:35:44 [ht]
s/5 forevermore/5/
17:36:13 [ht]
DO: They are changing HTML 4
17:36:20 [ht]
DC: They can't change the HTML 4 spec.
17:36:34 [ht]
... It was locked in 1998
17:36:48 [ht]
DO: So it's an add-on that is intended to work with HTML 4
17:36:49 [noah]
NM: Specifically, I asked Dan for a clarification as to whether HTML 5 documents are distinguished by, say, an HTML 5 doctype. Dan said "no, you are either a browser coded with knowledge of HTML 5 or not". I then said "I think Dan is right: handling namespace prefixes in such content is within the purvue of the HTML WG"
17:37:22 [ht]
DO: I would certainly like to see the HTML 5 WG do something about namespaces in HTML
17:37:42 [ht]
... but IE8 is going to ship first, and we should try to get them to do the right thing
17:37:44 [Stuart]
q+ to say that agree with Dan... this seems much more like partial support for XHTML (1.x)
17:38:08 [ht]
... or in particular make sure that what they do doesn't hurt more than it helps
17:38:22 [ht]
DC: What I'm offering you is a low-latency forum to achieve this
17:39:42 [ht]
SW: I think more interaction of the sort DC suggests would be good before we do anything
17:40:05 [ht]
DO: What about asking the TAG to come to an HTML 5 WG telcon?
17:40:21 [ht]
HST: I don't think we're ready for that, the TAG doesn't have an opinion on this proposal yet
17:41:29 [Norm]
17:41:34 [Stuart]
17:42:44 [ht]
q+ to ask the Chair to schedule discussion
17:42:52 [DanC_lap]
. HTML Versioning and DOCTYPEs
17:43:24 [Stuart]
17:44:19 [Stuart]
17:44:29 [Stuart]
ack ht
17:44:29 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to ask the Chair to schedule discussion
17:45:41 [ht]
ACTION: DO to send pointers to MS and Ruby Namespace proposals
17:45:41 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-123 - Send pointers to MS and Ruby Namespace proposals [on David Orchard - due 2008-03-20].
17:46:26 [ht]
Topic: Issue UrnsAndRegistries-50 (ISSUE-50)
17:46:53 [ht]
SW: The XRI TC have responded to our questions
17:47:16 [Stuart]
17:47:37 [ht]
... Also note the call for review of another XRI spec:
17:48:31 [DanC_lap]
trackbot-ng, status
17:49:09 [ht]
ACTION: Norman to review XRI response to our questions
17:49:09 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-124 - Review XRI response to our questions [on Norman Walsh - due 2008-03-20].
17:49:20 [ht]
ACTION: Stuart to review XRI response to our questions
17:49:20 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-125 - Review XRI response to our questions [on Stuart Williams - due 2008-03-20].
17:50:19 [ht]
Topic: Issue httpRedirections-57 (ISSUE-57)
17:50:56 [ht]
SW: We've had a response to our input of the diagram to SWEO, expressing some confusion
17:51:20 [ht]
... Trying to find a date when we can have Leo and XXX for a discussion about this
17:51:29 [DanC_lap]
17:52:09 [DanC_lap]
(sorry; I should have noted my conflict earlier)
17:52:21 [ht]
SW: Any replies to JR's message to www-tag about link-header?
17:52:38 [ht]
JR: Two private replies, one positive and one suggesting a meeting
17:52:46 [ht]
... No reply from Mark Nottingham yet
17:53:09 [ht]
SW: Graham Kline missed the note
17:53:24 [ht]
JR: I will follow up with him and MN directly
17:53:34 [ht]
s/note/note because of the BCC use/
17:54:01 [ht]
SW: Anyone yet read NM's input to the f2f:
17:55:12 [ht]
NM: I've been thinking a lot about HTTP redirections
17:55:31 [ht]
... A lot of the discussion of information resources is about whether the term is well-defined
17:56:13 [ht]
... I'm happy with it, because it captures a valuable aspect of what you know when you get a repr. of an information resource
17:56:52 [ht]
... but it seemed to me on reflection that the problems we have with repr. of e.g. me are similar to ones we have wrt repr. of generic resources
17:57:07 [DanC_lap]
(I see one short response from fielding; is this the one Noah referred to? )
17:57:27 [DanC_lap]
(hmm... there are more...)
17:57:28 [ht]
... I've had some skeptical/this doesn't help feedback, but no positive feedback yet
17:57:32 [Stuart]
17:57:43 [ht]
... I wrote it to be helpful, if it isn't, we shouldn't spend time on it
17:57:56 [jar]
17:58:09 [ht]
... so we should only spend time on this if/when someone says "yes, that's a useful starting point"
17:58:30 [DanC_lap]
q+ to invite Noah to read the thesis statement, if there is one
17:58:42 [ht]
JR: I read through it, and I think there's a lot of overlap with what the Health Care and Life Sciences group have been looking at
17:58:59 [ht]
... but we ended up in a very different place
17:59:10 [ht]
... I think it would help to have some use cases in place
17:59:29 [noah]
17:59:34 [Stuart]
ack danc
17:59:34 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to invite Noah to read the thesis statement, if there is one
17:59:34 [ht]
NM: I'm not pushing the solutions I offered, so much as the scenarios. . .
17:59:42 [ht]
DC: What's the thesis statement?
18:00:51 [Stuart]
As a quick summary: the intuition is to acknowledge that due to conneg and just general lack of consensus in the community, the current deployed use of 200 isn't sufficiently consistent and reliable for rigorous reasoning in the semantic Web.
18:01:49 [ht]
NM: I commend in particular the section labelled "Why Information Resource is not the right abstraction"
18:02:04 [Stuart]
18:05:03 [ht]
JR: I hope AWWSW will look at this
18:05:50 [ht]
NM: That's not the same as the TAG looking at it, given that if I'm right we might want to change something in WebArch, whereas AWWSW is just trying to formalize what we have already
18:06:14 [ht]
JR: But I certainly expect that once we've formalized thing, we'll be feeding back on problems
18:06:41 [ht]
18:07:15 [ht]
Topic: AOB
18:07:31 [ht]
HST: CURIEs comments not quite ready for review, maybe next week
18:07:41 [Zakim]
18:07:47 [Zakim]
18:07:51 [Zakim]
18:07:53 [Zakim]
18:08:01 [Zakim]
18:08:14 [ht]
RRSAgent, bye
18:08:31 [ht]
RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
18:08:37 [ht]
RRSAgent, draft inutes
18:08:37 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft inutes', ht. Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:08:46 [ht]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:08:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ht
18:08:53 [ht]
RRSAgent, bye
18:08:53 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
18:08:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DO to send pointers to MS and Ruby Namespace proposals [1]
18:08:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:08:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norman to review XRI response to our questions [2]
18:08:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:08:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Stuart to review XRI response to our questions [3]
18:08:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in